Talk:High King
Cleanup This article needs a serious cleanup. It's supposed to be an article about the position of High King but it has a listing of Kings of Skyrim in general and talks about and lists Kings of Holds. Either change the title of the article or remove all content that doesn't relate to the position of High King as inappropriate for the article. 22:12, July 23, 2012 (UTC) :Feel free to make the necessary changes to this article. I would recommend against deleting the information about the "other royalty". Instead, try moving it to an article called King or perhaps add a section Called "Royalty" under the Skyrim article. -- 22:16, July 23, 2012 (UTC) ::And what of the factually incorrect and superfluous "Modern Day" section? There is no lore whatsoever supporting the notion that the "defeater" of the High King has a right to become High King. All the lore irrefutably places the power to appoint the High King in the hands of the Moot in that situation. Ulfric confirms this in the game in his dialogue options, as does Elisif when asked if she is High Queen because of Torygg's death. The entire section is a fabrication, unsourced and contradicted by lore. Doesn't the staff do any fact checking for the site's articles? 02:16, July 24, 2012 (UTC) :::We do, but your insults are meaningless. This is mentioned in game, whether or not it is true, does not mean it deserves to be ignore. Yes, Ulfric says that it is Ancient Nord tradition to become High King if he bests the High King in battle. That is a fabrication on his part, but it doesn't mean he didn't try to pull it off. The controversy of that statement is what makes it worth including. If the wording is inaccurate, then change it. -- 02:33, July 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::Ulfric never says any such thing in the game. Source your claim if it exists. His actual dialogues in the game acknowledge he has no such right and that the Moot has to appoint the next High King. He doesn't try to pull anything off. On that point he is honest and forthright. Care to try again? 02:51, July 24, 2012 (UTC) :I specifically recall these exact words, and, where is your proof? -- 02:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC) ::Then source it. When you initially speak with Ulfric in the Palace of Kings and ask him if Elisif is the High Queen he says that the Moot must convene to appoint her implying that the authority lies with the Moot and is not his. You are offered the opportunity to talk to him about his duel and he NEVER states or implies his defeating Torygg gives him claim to the throne. At the conclusion o the Stormcloak quest line Ulfic states that they must honor Nord tradition and therefore refuses the title of High King because the Moot must declare him to be the High King for him to hold that title. Specify exactly when in the game Ulfric contradicts himself. "I specifically recall these exact words" is extremely vague and not verifiable. 03:26, July 24, 2012 (UTC) This is still incorrect. When you speak with Sybille Stentor she clearly states that if Torygg had refused to accept the challenge then Ulfric could have called for a meeting of the Moot. Winning the duel conveys no such right. Common sense dictates that if the High King is killed regardless of the circumstances and there is no heir then the Moot automatically meets to elect a new high King. Conversely, if there were a lineal heir, as the victor in the duel Ulfric would have zero claim to the throne. That's clear from the lore. I question the worth of even mentioning Ulfric and the Civil War at all in this article. It's far simpler to note that the Moot may also exercise it's power to appoint a new High King when the current High King refuses to accept a challenge to combat issued under Nord tradition and to reference Sybille Stentor's ingame dialogue as the source. Regardless, the notion that the right of challenge conveys any spoils to the victor simply doesn't exist under Nord tradition in Skyrim. I think you're simply subconsciously importing a concept which did exist in many similar societies both in reality and fiction 18:21, July 24, 2012 (UTC) : I can see your point. The exact line is'' "By Nord custom, once the challenge was issued in court, Torygg had no choice but to accept. Had he not, Ulfric would have had cause to call a new moot and a new vote for High King."'' : Where you said'' "Conversely, if there were a lineal heir, as the victor in the duel Ulfric would have zero claim to the throne.". Im not sure about this as one thing Sybille Stentor reveals through dialoge is "Even when Istlod died, the moot voted to make Torygg High King of Skyrim". : This means that despite there being a living heir (Torygg), they still convene to name the new king. I know this conflicts with the line in pocket guide ''"henceforth, the Moot was convened only when a King died without direct heirs". However it could be that the moot was more of a theatre/ceremony in this case. : Jimeee (talk) 18:51, July 24, 2012 (UTC) :: It's a ceremonial confirmation. As you pointed out the Pocket Guide explicitly says that the Moot only selects the High King when there are no heirs. That wasn't by whim. It was done after the disastrous War of Succession in order to limit the power of the Moot that played a pivotal role in causing that war. ::The Pocket Guide also explicitly states that the Moot has only appointed a High King 3 times since the end of that war and the Pact of Chieftains in the First Era. That's thousands of years and dozens of High Kings. The only way that can be reconciled with what Sybille said is if the Moot's role is ceremonial for heirs of the High King. ::This is also consistent with the perceptions of Abdul-Mujib Ababneh in his book Skyrim's Rule: An Outsider's View. From his limited perspective and understanding, the Moot's role appeared to be a mere formality because the Jarl of Haafingar was always elected to the position of High King for generations. He is, of course, incorrect and misunderstands the actual authority of the Moot because he doesn't realize that the real reason, that the Jarl of Haafingar has held the title of High King from generation to generation is because the right has passed on from each prior High King to his heir apparent, not by action of the Moot. ::Regardless it does't change the fact that defeating a seated High King in combat under right of challenge gives no special authority to the victor. The Moot has to meet under its normal authority when that happens because the High King has died. Claiming to the contrary defies common sense and logic. The misinformation should be removed because it's continued presence only serves to undermine the credibility of this article and the site (especially since it's even worse predecessor was defended by an administrator as accurate and fact checked when neither is true).-- 04:10, July 26, 2012 (UTC) :I just noticed the added footnotes. They don't support the misinformation in the article. :Ulfric is referring to his ability to frustrate a meeting of the Moot by starting the Civil War. Even if you incorrectly believe otherwise that doesn't imply a right to call a meeting of the Moot, it implies a right to prevent one (which is ludicrous and refuted by lore). :The footnote to support the fabrication that Ulfric believes it gave him a stronger claim to the throne makes absolutely no sense. It refutes that very notion. He acknowledges that respect for Nord tradition requires respecting the sole authority of the Moot to appoint the High King when there are no heirs. The reference to "Until" is reference to the obvious fact that Ulfric knows that the Moot is going to elect him because (i) they all want a High King that supports an independent Skyrim and (ii) he effectively controls the majority of the Moot because he personally installed 4 out of the 9 Jarls so they owe their fealty to him, he's the fifth Jarl and Elisif has already pledged fealty to him. It has nothing to do with a belief in a non-existent right to the throne from victory in his duel with Torygg. :There is nothing in the game that implies strongly or otherwise that Ulfric initiated the challenge to intimidate the other Jarls into making him High King. The footnote does nothing to support that hollow claim. It only shows Ulfric's desire for an independent Skyrim. :Perhaps the most illogical footnote is the one that purports to support the notion that he rescinds his earlier statement. The exact same statement cited in both footnotes, simultaneously supports the fabrication that Ulfric believes his victory over Torygg gives him a stronger claim to the throne and rescinds itself? Really? :Wiki articles are supposed to be about facts, not wild unsupported speculation and fabrication based on weak arguments based on extremely subjective, illogical, and contradictory interpretations of in game dialogues to falsely present the same as fact. This entire section has no place in any article on any site purporting to be a wiki. Whichever interpretation you prefer, mine or the author of this misinformation the very fact that it they can be rationally contrasted is indicative that content like this is inappropriate and better suited to a forum topic than a wiki article. :One final note, there's no such word as "defeater." I realize that English isn't the first language for many contributors to this site but it's clear that it is for some of the staff. I'm not touching this article because it's my preference to remove the entire section because it's a mess, beyond rehabilitation, and inappropriate for a wiki article. At least one admin appears to be unreasonably clinging to the notion that up is down and in is out in maintaining this section so I leave it for the staff to decide amongst themselves as to whether they are going to actually follow basic wiki standards for publication or are going to ignore them to placate some of their members.-- 01:34, July 27, 2012 (UTC) High Kings Shouldn't there be a High King of every province? (i.e. Morrowind, High Rock, Black Marsh) Just wondering... ∂єαтн αηgєℓ (talk) 05:26, September 1, 2012 (UTC) The High King is part of the Skyrim government. If you want to get techincal it's basicly just a feudal system, and all provences have a sort of feudal system, but only Skyrim's highest set of government is called High King. Such as some counrties have Presidents, while others have Prime ministers. Zelron (talk) 05:40, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Cleanup 'More Cleanup' Shouldn't this article ether be renamed to "High King of Skyrim" like the "King of Morrowind" article or stop focusing so heavily on Skyrim, like for example the Emperor article dosent ignore other nations and only talk about the septim empire, it also talks about the Reman Empire and Ysgramor Dynasty, and as from what I have read on this wiki, there definitely where High Kings in other provinces/countries besides Skyrim, for example, I know that in High Rock there was High King Emeric and in Hammerfell there may have been a High King? (on Thassad II personal page he is referred to as High King of Hammerfell while he is referred to as a king on the list of Kings on the King Article. Anyway just wondering. 82.148.72.69 18:31, May 4, 2018 (UTC)